UCLA Geffen School of Medicine: Navigating CASPP, APC, and Appealing an Adverse Academic Action

Medical students at UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine (DGSOM) face a unique academic and professional standing structure that is easy to misunderstand. The two bodies that matter most are the Academic Performance Committees (APCs) and the Committee on Academic Standing, Progress, and Promotion (CASPP). They do very different things. Knowing which committee is doing what, and at which stage an adverse outcome can be appealed, is essential to preparing a credible defense of your medical career.

Process information current as of April 2026.

APCs: The Front-Line Remediation Committees

UCLA Geffen operates three year-specific Academic Performance Committees:

• APC-1 for Year One students.
• APC-2 for Year Two students.
• APC-3/4 for Years Three and Four students.

APCs review students who are in academic difficulty — a course failure, a clerkship concern, a professionalism issue flagged by faculty, a USMLE-related concern, or other trigger. Their role is to assess the situation and develop an individualized remediation plan designed to bring the student back into good standing.

APCs make recommendations. They do not issue the final decision on academic and professional standing. That authority sits with CASPP.

What this means in practice: the APC meeting is where the remediation plan is shaped. If the APC recommends remediation terms, those terms become the operating framework for whether the student can recover standing. If the APC recommends adverse action — probation or dismissal — that recommendation travels up to CASPP for binding decision.

CASPP: The Binding Decision Body

The Committee on Academic Standing, Progress, and Promotion is a 12-member faculty body appointed by the Faculty Executive Committee. CASPP issues final determinations on academic and professional standing, including probation, dismissal, and decisions about permission to continue in the program.

CASPP's docket comes from APC recommendations, from direct referrals arising out of serious policy violations, and from periodic standing reviews. When CASPP considers a case, the student is typically given an opportunity to respond in writing and, depending on the specific matter, to participate in the committee's proceeding.

Because CASPP's decision is binding within DGSOM's academic standing framework, preparation for a CASPP proceeding warrants the same level of care as a Student Conduct Hearing in the Student Conduct Code context — arguably more, given the career-ending implications of an adverse outcome.

Probation Under DGSOM

Probation under DGSOM is a defined, 12-month status. The terms of the probation are typically specified in writing: what the student must achieve, by when, and under what conditions continued enrollment is permitted.

The critical structural point: failure to improve standing by the end of the 12-month probation period results in a dismissal recommendation. Probation is not a holding pattern. It is a structured runway during which the student either demonstrably recovers or moves toward dismissal.

This makes the probation period itself an active period of preparation, documentation, and engagement — not something to wait out. Students who arrive at the end of 12 months without a clear record of progress against the probation terms typically face a CASPP dismissal recommendation.

Automatic Dismissal Triggers

DGSOM's framework contains specific triggers that move cases toward dismissal:

• Three course or clerkship failures in one academic year.
• Four failures in one year (regardless of course/clerkship distribution).
• Failure to meet remediation terms set by an APC or CASPP.
• Failure to meet DGSOM USMLE policy.
• Violation of the DGSOM Honor Code, Professionalism Policy, or UCLA Student Conduct Code.

Hitting any of these triggers takes the case out of the ordinary-remediation track and onto a dismissal track. The fact that the trigger is identified as automatic does not eliminate the student's ability to respond, present mitigation, and defend against the dismissal recommendation at the CASPP level — but it does mean the default trajectory is toward dismissal unless the student actively engages.

The Appeal Pathway

For students receiving an adverse CASPP outcome, the appeal pathway has specific, time-bound steps:

Step 1: Written appeal to CASPP within 30 days of the decision. This is CASPP's opportunity to reconsider its own decision. The written appeal should be specific about the grounds — procedural error, new evidence, disproportionality — and should be supported by documentation.

Step 2: If CASPP denies the appeal, appeal to the Vice Dean for Education within 10 working days of notification. This is a tighter window and should not be treated as an afterthought. The Vice Dean for Education reviews the CASPP decision and the record, and issues a decision.

Step 3: For dismissal recommendations specifically, further appeal to the Faculty Executive Committee. The Vice Dean for Education's decision is final for academic, professionalism, and technical standards matters, with this specific exception: a recommendation to dismiss can be appealed further to the Faculty Executive Committee.

Missing any of these deadlines generally forecloses the corresponding level of review.

Residents and Fellows: A Different Process

Residents and fellows at UCLA Health are not covered by CASPP. Their academic and disciplinary matters are handled under the separate Graduate Medical Education (GME) Academic Due Process Policy, which has its own timelines, committees, and appeal pathways.

If you are a resident or fellow, the GME policy is the process that applies to you. Preparing as if CASPP's framework governed your case will lead to mis-prepared defenses and missed deadlines.

What Preparation Looks Like

For DGSOM students facing APC or CASPP action:

1. Understand the specific framework in play. APC remediation, CASPP probation, CASPP dismissal recommendation, and Vice Dean appeal each have distinct standards and evidentiary focuses. Preparation calibrated to the wrong level is wasted preparation.
2. Build the documentary record. Transcripts, feedback evaluations, remediation documentation, professionalism records, mental health or medical documentation where relevant, evidence of recovery and insight.
3. Draft the written submission with precision. At the CASPP level and above, the written record is often the most influential input. Drafts should be specific, evidence-backed, and tightly organized.
4. Identify mitigating factors on their own terms. "I was struggling" is less useful than a documented, specific showing of circumstances, response, and trajectory.
5. Engage an Advisor. AdvocatED advisors work with DGSOM students at APC, CASPP, Vice Dean, and Faculty Executive Committee levels, and with residents and fellows at the GME level.

How AdvocatED Helps DGSOM Students

Our work with medical students focuses on the specific process at the specific stage: shaping the remediation plan at APC, defending the probation or dismissal case at CASPP, drafting the Vice Dean for Education appeal, and, where applicable, preparing the Faculty Executive Committee appeal for dismissal cases. The stakes at every level are career-defining; the preparation has to match.

If you have received a communication from an APC, CASPP, or the Vice Dean for Education, reach out to AdvocatED immediately. The appeal windows in this structure are tight and stack on top of one another. Lost time at one level constrains options at the next.